"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
03/28/2014 at 13:03 • Filed to: planelopnik
3
23|
"Chris Clarke" (shiftsandgiggles)
03/28/2014 at 13:03 • Filed to: planelopnik | 3
| 23 |
Apparently some people feel that the planet needs saving, or we need to limit our dependence on fossil fuels. Regardless or your stance, there are many who believe the answer is electric vehicles. With the growing popularity of Tesla and the government backing of cars like the Chevy Volt and the Fisker Karma, why isn't there more support into the development of electric aircraft as well.
In January, the Federal Aviation Administration released a draft to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! prohibiting passengers onboard flights of electric aircraft. The draft order also limits electric aircraft from flights over congested areas and at night.
While Pipistrel in Slovenia is the only manufacturer to stamp a serial number on a production aircraft with the Taurus Electro G2, other companies are trying to enter the market like Yuneec International, a Chinese company looking to bring its light sport electric airplane to the U.S.
In the mix with international manufactures trying to capture a potential U.S. market, are startup companies struggling to to keep up like Beyond Aviation and their experimental electric Cessna 172.
Whether or not electric airplane will have success in the skies, it seems that the government has taken a hypocritical on the value of electric vehicles, risking taxpayer dollars on electric cars yet placing extra regulations on flying electric vehicles.
BaconSandwich is tasty.
> Chris Clarke
03/28/2014 at 13:05 |
|
So... I wonder how much bribing lobbing it took for this to get through?
MonkeePuzzle
> Chris Clarke
03/28/2014 at 13:11 |
|
"Apparently some people feel that the planet needs saving, or we need to limit our dependence on fossil fuels." or that we need to use non-fossil fuel options for boring activities like commuting, which will mean more fossil fuels remain for fun activities like racing
|
Chris Clarke
> MonkeePuzzle
03/28/2014 at 13:12 |
|
I appreciate you positive point of view. I guess its all about perspective.
NaturallyAspirated
> Chris Clarke
03/28/2014 at 14:07 |
|
The FAA has always been very cautious about allowing new technologies to be used in aviation. Hell, most reciprocating planes still use magnetos, and if they have fuel injection at all, they have batch-fired injectors.
The fact that they mention electric powered aircraft in the same section as rocket-powered aircraft and aircraft that have "eject" as part of the emergency checklist is well in-line with the FAA's slowness in accepting new technology.
Let's face it, the problems that electric cars have had, like catching on fire, and holding much less charge than expected depending on ambient temperature, would not be improved by being experienced at 6,000 feet.
|
Chris Clarke
> NaturallyAspirated
03/28/2014 at 14:24 |
|
I have to agree that the FAA is far behind the times. It seems fairly obvious that their mission is to further more bureaucracy in the name of perceived safety. They find it their duty to create legislation for the sake of legislation to stand in the way of progress.
Fredbob
> Chris Clarke
03/28/2014 at 17:02 |
|
Prior to starting work on my pilot's license, I had never dealt much directly with government bureaucracy... I'm understanding why people dislike it so much.
There should be more strict rules about flying than, for example, driving. But this is ridiculous.
LSXforYourSuperCar
> Chris Clarke
03/28/2014 at 17:41 |
|
Aircraft may be the single worst segment of transportation to try to demonstrate EV tech, for the simple fact that conventional fuels weigh so much less than equivalent batteries. It's not even close, a pound of gasoline contains at least 100 times more energy than a pound of the most sophisticated battery.
The Bugatti Veyron is a very heavy car but overcomes it's weight problem with extreme horsepower and traction. Since so much of an aircraft's performance is dictated by it's weight, using an energy source that weighs at least 100x more than the the incumbent, seems like a bad idea...
dcdon
> Chris Clarke
03/28/2014 at 22:29 |
|
Even if the FAA allowed battery powered aircraft, the efficiency penalty associated with batteries as an energy source is hard to justify...A discharged battery weighs the same as a charged one. A fueled aircraft gets more efficient as the fuel burns off and the plane gets lighter. This doesn't even touch on the actual carbon footprint of an electric vehicle. Just manufacturing batteries generates a significant quantity of carbon dioxide...electric cars or airplanes aren't actually reducing the carbon emissions.
Sunray09
> NaturallyAspirated
03/29/2014 at 05:02 |
|
The FAA may be cautious,but they are also short sighted. How is it that with all the regulations that we are still not able to locate an aircraft flown with their approval and manufactured in compliance with their directives? Innovation needs to be fostered and denying passenger use may squelch the early adoption of the technology. Battery technology is poised to make some radical advances with materials like Graphene offering great promise. Compared to the complexity of a 4 cycle engine an electric motor could offer the consumer a significant price advantage on overall upkeep.
The Artist Formerly Known As...
> Chris Clarke
03/29/2014 at 08:38 |
|
The FAA doesn't create legislation. It writes regulations. And most of those are airworthiness directives. And thank god for that. There's a reason why aviation safety continues to improve in the United States.
|
The Artist Formerly Known As...
> Fredbob
03/29/2014 at 08:39 |
|
Which rules do you find most burdensome?
Michael Zaite
> NaturallyAspirated
03/30/2014 at 13:21 |
|
They aren't even batch fired injectors mostly, they are full mechanical. the IO-360 basically just has a metered pressurized injector system that just kinda hoses fuel in the intake. better than a carburetor, but by like -| |- that much.
http://www.eci.aero/exp/fis_operat…
|
Michael Zaite
> MonkeePuzzle
03/30/2014 at 13:24 |
|
Exactly!!!
|
Michael Zaite
> BaconSandwich is tasty.
03/30/2014 at 13:27 |
|
Probably not much, in this case it really is new frontiers, and the FAA is very conservative. When they see electrics not run out of juice for a while they will relax, but that would require a lot of people spending a lot of money to basically just fly by themselves during the day in the middle of nowhere. Something a lot of us Americans don't have the time or money for anymore.
|
Michael Zaite
> dcdon
03/30/2014 at 13:30 |
|
I can see it being useful for stuff like ultralights, and aerobatics mostly. Short hops for goofing around and pattern work. Sadly time and again it's been proven that the areal motorcycle idea just doesn't work. Pilots like taking friends up. not being able to do that means why bother?
|
NaturallyAspirated
> Michael Zaite
03/31/2014 at 11:52 |
|
Thanks for the correction. I haven't worked on a piston aircraft in quite some time (is my excuse). PW121 for life!
|
Michael Zaite
> NaturallyAspirated
03/31/2014 at 15:03 |
|
PWC-123C for Me! DHC-8-201 Son!
|
NaturallyAspirated
> Michael Zaite
03/31/2014 at 18:49 |
|
C'mon, DHC-8-100 is where it's at! More spoilers == more fun!
Although it has been a few years since I was wrenching. I'm doing computer stuff now, although I do miss getting my hands dirty TBH.
|
Michael Zaite
> NaturallyAspirated
03/31/2014 at 20:22 |
|
It does have more spoilers! But 2000HP a side! That's 2000HP for me and 2000HP for the guy next to me. And when it's empty, the short field takeoffs and landings would blow your MIND!
MFEJAL grey because who knows...
> LSXforYourSuperCar
04/02/2014 at 20:56 |
|
try to explain that to fanatics, and be treated like the plague.
Byron Young
> LSXforYourSuperCar
04/02/2014 at 20:59 |
|
So you're suggesting abandoning the concept altogether until they perform better than IC aircraft? Plenty of electric cars existed before their performance/range could compete with gasoline equivalents, and the lessons learned from those vehicles paved the way for vehicles like the Tesla Model S. Additionally, there's plenty of people using electric propulsion for aircraft successfully right now, especially in self-launching sailplanes. This isn't a rule that affects the future when we're all flying around in electric hover cars, it affects the present, and the FAA would be very unwise to implement this rule.
|
Timothy Robson
> LSXforYourSuperCar
04/02/2014 at 21:07 |
|
This was the same criticism leveled at electric cars just a few years ago. The engineers working on electric aircraft are very conscious of the weight issue of the fuel. On the other hand, the electric motor and controller weigh far less than the IC engine they replace. Other advantages include the dramatically fewer moving parts, no loss of power at altitude and the ability to overspeed an electric motor for take-off but run at its rated power for cruise. In many ways it is far better suited to aircraft than IC engines.
Rassss
> LSXforYourSuperCar
04/03/2014 at 22:27 |
|
There are loads and loads of bad ideas approved and enforced by the goverment. This is not such a bad idea on a glider type plane with one or two seats. Scrap that, its actually great!